Excerpts from Michael E. Berumen's book, "Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business," as well as writings on other topics, including animal rights, George Bush, capital punishment, Churchill, economics, God, liberalism, religion, philosophy and science.

Welcome Reader

I suppose it is kind of preposterous that one imagines himself important enough to write down his opinions for others to read. Chattering superciliousness is one of the most infuriating things about academics and so-called intellectuals, generally, who feel compelled to share their thoughts. But here it goes, anyway.

Defeat Modern Fascism and Donald Trump

Having looked at the recent change in political polls in the
United States in the aftermath of Paris and San Bernardino, I find it difficult
to think of much other than what I wish to opine about here. It is quite
early in the presidential election season, and things often end-up very
differently than the way they start out. However, there are many
differences in the political climate this time, and there has been much to
confound conventional wisdom ... and I am more worried about the future than I
have ever been since I was able to vote. I am hoping things will change very
soon.

When I was young I undertook a study of Fascism and Nazism from both an ideological
and historical perspective. There are many overlapping ideas and trends, but
they are also different in aspects of their underlying theories (especially in
relation to early, Italian Fascism) and their historical development. But
I was particularly fascinated with how Germany, the country of Göethe,
Beethoven, and Kant ... with the most educated and literate population then
extant, and possessing a representative democracy, one with a system of laws
and distributed powers ... could in less than a decade become a land of
unprecedented intolerance, death camps, and a country that would cause the
deaths of tens of millions of people across the globe, indeed, bringing the
entire world as close as it has ever come to being enveloped in a dystopian
abyss. It is especially remarkable that throughout most of the 1920s and up to
1933, Adolf Hitler was a laughing stock and a figure of derision among the
elites on both the conventional right and left, including the governing and
military classes. He was thought to be a comical buffoon by the political
cognoscenti; a crass vulgarian by the upper classes; a semi-literate theorist
by the professoriate; and a silly, erstwhile corporal and martinet by the
senior officers of the Reichswehr hailing from the elite Preussische
Kriegsakademie. Soon enough, though, these smug elites would be singing a
new tune, and they would be goose-stepping and Sieg Heil-ing to it,
and be assured, most people did—including the complacent naysayers of the
universities, drawing rooms, and military--or they'd find themselves in a camp
or swinging from a rope or affixed to a meat hook. Such a buffoon ... a
laughing stock that could never rise to power ... is among us today. I am
referring to Donald Trump. I believe Trump and Trumpism represent a greater
existential threat to the American way of life than ISIS, which is not to
understate the need to deal with violent fundamentalism, but it is important in
doing so that one not lose all one holds dear or one's humanity.

There are obvious differences between the US now and Germany then, and, to be
sure, between Trump and Hitler; however, there are too many similarities
to go unnoticed. Trump, like a good Nazi or Fascist, is very adept at
blending the popular ideas of both the ideological right and left, and he does
so in a way to capture the imagination of many, and especially of the
dispossessed, the disgruntled, and the insecure. And I draw special attention
to the latter condition: insecurity. There has been a fair
amount of economic insecurity for many years. Now there is the insecurity
of physical safety. Like Hitler, Trump borrows easily from both capitalism and
socialism (e.g., he has supported a single-payer health insurance, and would
restrict markets and trade, among other things), and he cannot be categorized
in any conventional sense ... consider Hitler's own words in describing
National Socialism: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes
national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living,
creative Socialism." (Adolf Hitler, Max Domarus. The Essential
Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. pp. 171, 172–173) Trump is a complete
utilitarian and opportunist, adopting whatever principle that will work to win
support, and he is especially adroit at appealing to our darker biases and
tendencies, and playing upon our primal fears. And like the author of Mein
Kampf, Trump well understands that even the biggest lie, when it is
repeated both often and loudly enough, will be believed by many. He is no fool,
and contrary to the musings and smugness of today's elites ... he is the
smartest man in the Democratic or Republican field, not in a cerebral,
literate, or intellectual sense ... but in an instinctive, intuitive way, and
not altogether unlike Adolf Hitler's peculiar and Satanic genius... and, like
the latter, a master of self-promotion and publicity, gifted at understanding
and tapping into the darker impulses of people. He is much smarter than the
media, too, both the mainstream and conventional left and right-leaning outlets,
including even its most gifted puppet masters, such as Roger Ailes of Fox News.

I will make a bold and, I believe, defensible assertion: Donald Trump is the
most dangerous politician of prominence in the United States since Huey Long,
the "Kingfish” of Louisiana who might well have taken the presidency away
from FDR in the thirties, and who was another kind of American-styled Fascist.
Indeed, Trump is perhaps much more dangerous given his wealth, national pulpit,
mastery of media, and the breadth of his popularity. Recent events have given
his appeal and potential for power even greater sustenance. In my view, he is
potentially even more dangerous than the criminal Richard Nixon, who produced
the greatest Constitutional crisis since the American Civil War, or even the
foolish war criminal, George W. Bush, and his sidekick, the odious brigand,
Dick Cheney, who together killed tens of thousands of people unnecessarily, and
whose stupidity ultimately gave us ISIL. Each was very bad, of course ...
but none a Fascist or Nazi-like in any real, historical or ideological sense.
Saying someone is worse than Richard Nixon is a very big leap for yours truly.
But Nixon, for all of his criminality and paranoia, was not a proponent
openly--or even surreptitiously--of as much wholesale evildoing as Donald
Trump. As Trump is a clear and present danger to the US, indeed, the ultimate
Anti-American, he is therefore a danger to the world as a whole. Taking even
the slightest chance of handing over America's economic and military might to
this man should send shudders up every thinking person's spine.

Trump is an obvious authoritarian, and he glibly ignores many of the most
important aspects of the U.S. Constitution and the laws protecting minorities
and the individual liberties of all, and he does so in a very clever and
sometimes subtle manner, one that appeals to large swaths of an aggrieved
population. He is clearly a racist; probably an anti-Semite (one need
only have heard his unbelievable speech to conservative, Republican Jews, one
that punctuated with the worst stereotypes!); a bully who suffers no
criticism, one who even countenances physical action against those who dare to
do so (such as the forced removal of a Black Lives Matter protester and a Hispanic
reporter from his rallies) ; a hyper-nationalist, making ordinary flag-waiving
patriotism seem tepid; an economic protectionist and proponent of state
corporatism--a quasi-centralized control, much like the Nazi’s unholy economic
cartels and alliances; an unabashed nativist; and he identifies the greatness
of the nation with his own personality. Add to this his highly exaggerated
sense of machismo and masculinity, hallmarks of the self-portraits and public
posturing of both il Duce and der Führer. Every
single one of these characteristics was shared by the leaders and major
proponents of Nazism ... and all but racism and anti-Semitism by Italian
Fascists, that is, until Mussolini (and then only when it benefited him as part
of the Axis, and much later in his career).

Hitler had much material to work with, of course, with the aftermath of WWI and
the pervasive feelings of national disgrace that obtained; the Weimar economy
with high unemployment and hyperinflation; the perceived threats of communism
and anarchism; a distrust of free or unfettered markets and of the bourgeoisie;
a perceived moral decay and the libertine lifestyles of elites; and fear of the
principal bogeyman of all, the Jews, the alleged source of all manner of
depredations, economic and otherwise. And though different in some major
respects, Trump has his own material in the current environment: feelings of
dispossession, economic dislocation, and alienation among the uneducated white
working-classes; fear of the "other" as manifested by anti-immigrant
sentiments in major segments of the population; and an unsettled middle-class
and even many affluent, educated people who are looking for predictability and
stability. He has of course made much of the “otherness” of President Obama,
and he is the chief instigator and popularizer of “birtherism” and the result
is that 43% of Republicans consider Obama to be a Muslim and even more think he
is an illegitimate president. Only 29% of Republicans believe he was born in
the United States. This is all part and parcel to Trump's insidious agenda to
turn the present majority of whites against minorities and to capitalize on the
changing demographics in America. It is not that he is a theoretical racist
with an overarching racialist philosophy a la Herder, other proto-Nazis, or the
malevolent Joseph Göebbels; he is much more of a practical racist.
Indeed, like some Nazis, such as the Strasser brothers, Trump panders to those
he would abuse or exclude, and uses them as dupes (his African American acolyte,
Omorosa, comes to mind), but only to the extent that it is useful. Perhaps more
worrisome than anything, however, is the increasing insecurity that arises from
the reality of terrorism and the growing (disproportionate to reality) fear of
it, which serves to attenuate tolerance and to magnify all of the other
concerns I've mentioned. And now Trump has even insinuated in
not-so-subtle terms that Obama has a hidden agenda to support Islamic
terrorism.

Just to scratch the surface of some of Trump's most reprehensible ideas, he
unreservedly has promoted identifying and tracking Muslims ... even if they are
American citizens; he advocates killing the families and destroying the homes
of families who have the misfortune to be related to terrorists, notwithstanding
their guilt or innocence (presumably babies and children, too?); he would erect
walls around the nation to keep people out, walls that might also keep people
in; he openly and repeatedly accuses Hispanic immigrants and African American
citizens of being criminals of the worst kind; he is a crude and vile critic of
all who disagree with him; he would trample the property rights of owners to
suit the interests of the state, and he would ignore (and routinely says he
would) enshrined principles and statutes of commercial and contract law, both
domestic and international; he would violate even the Geneva Conventions on
military matters; he says awful things about women and the disabled; and he is
an utter fabulist, making things up about other people, historical events, and
even about his own biography at every turn. All of these things are in various
ways and in various degrees eerily similar to a certain failed, Austrian
artist.

Donald Trump is definitely not your grandfather's Republican. Taft,
Eisenhower, Dirksen, Goldwater, and Rockefeller are all spinning in their
graves. He is not even a Reagan or Bush or Romney Republican. That only a
handful of nationally prominent Republicans today--or even Democrats--are
roundly, unambiguously, and pointedly denouncing him is shameful. Who
among them, like Churchill not so very long ago, will take the political risk
of denouncing this evil man, notwithstanding any public ignominy that could
result? Donald Trump is something very different than previous Republicans. He
is certainly not a liberal or libertarian, but he is also not a conservative.
Hitler and Mussolini did not fit into any of those conventional categories
either. He possesses all of the key characteristics of a Fascist, and
many of a Nazi, though I have only lately come to use the latter designation in
describing him. I do not use these labels lightly, I hasten to add––unlike many
who did in my idealistic youth, or even some today who use those appellations
flippantly and, more often than not, inaccurately ... or those who compare
various people on the political right with whom they disagree to Hitler, which
is nearly always inaccurate and sheer hyperbole. There is only
one Hitler, but no one of importance comes as close in style, character,
and ideological makeup in my view as Donald Trump. Modern conservatives
(who still hue to and wish to "conserve" many liberal principles) or
even most reactionaries or nationalists/Chauvinists (in the proper sense) are
not Fascists or Nazi-like. Donald Trump, however, is like one by every
significant lexical and historical standard. Is he genocidal or will he
be rounding up people and putting them into camps? That might be a
stretch, and I simply don't know. He has not said so.But I do not trust him.
Hitler was not openly so or advocating this for many years, either. He
gained power, first. And many of the things he said and did to gain power are
not dissimilar to things one hears today from Donald Trump in his constant
bellowing about making America great again (its renewed greatness achievable
only through him, of course, for he is great himself, and Americans can share
in his greatness by basking in his unalloyed and glorious reflection) ... and
by his very open pandering to people's hatreds and fears.

There is one more historical thing to consider. Do not think what is
beginning to occur with Muslims, at least in terms of the open talk, is
altogether dissimilar to what was happening to Jews in Germany in the early to
mid-1930s, and particularly prior to 1938 and leading up to Kristallnacht (late
'38), after which things would rapidly deteriorate into the Holocaust.
The Jews, a relatively small percentage of the population, were blamed for many
ills, ranging from Bolshevism to financial mischief, and it was customary to
point to the depredations of a very few Jews to paint a broad brush across all
Jewry. Sound familiar? The Jews were increasingly seen by many as a threat to
security ... as being un-German , unpatriotic, and even traitorous (Germany having
been “stabbed in the back” by Jews in WWI ... causing the nation's humiliation
and defeat … and a well-known Nazi shibboleth) ... and dangerous in many
different ways. Do keep in mind there were a very small number of radical
Jews who were also anarchists and Bolsheviks, and who committed some violent
acts of insurgency. The Nazi's used and magnified such incidents to great
effect in their propaganda. This is not altogether dissimilar to the
small number of radical Jihadists among Muslims in the west. (A great many more
violent acts were committed by people of Christian backgrounds then and now!!
But never mind that! Just as over 33,000 people die each year from guns in
America today, and almost all at the hands of non-Muslims!) And then it all
began in the early 1930s with identification programs, then enforced
segregation, then restrictions of legal rights and finally the elimination of
all rights, and so on! In a matter of a few years well over half the
Jewish population left Germany. Over 90% of those remaining, a couple of
hundred thousand by the beginning of WWII and within Germany's borders proper,
were exterminated. It couldn't happen again? Don't kid
yourself. And if you think some of the things we hear today from the
likes of Trump, especially Trump, but also from his sympathizers and his
fearful apologists (some on Fox News, for example), is all that different from
things that were being said in Germany in the 20s and 30s, you are very
mistaken and need to read the history about that period. There were
differences in conditions and national characteristics, to be sure ... but some
very unsettling similarities.

I believe it is incumbent upon all liberal-minded (in the broadest sense of the
word, not a partisan one) and thinking men and women of good will to denounce
Donald Trump; to declaim against his repugnant beliefs; and to take steps to
prevent this monstrous personality from ever gaining power. Never have I
had Santayana's admonition about repeating history by not learning from it as
much in mind as I do now. Perhaps it is unlikely that he will be the
nominee of the Republican Party. But we should not assume that he won't
be, and we should not as individuals remain silent while there is a chance that
he could be. And if he is the nominee, Americans, please vote
practically, not idealistically ... for whomever on the current scene is
against him (most likely Hillary Clinton) and who also has a chance of winning,
even if he or she would not be someone we’d prefer. In the meantime, I am
considering registering as a Republican (temporarily!!)--a party I mostly have
loathed since 1969--just to vote against him in the primary! Heaven help me.

I apologize for the prolix nature of this. I hope others might
agree. And finally, I hope that someone prominent on the political scene
will rise above his or her fears and find the courage to roundly denounce this
man and his evil views. President Obama is too professorial and
analytical in my view, though he certainly has access to the pulpit. The
Republicans up until now have mostly been afraid or cannot gain the attention
necessary to do so. Hillary does not have the oratorical skills. The nation will never elect Bernie Sanders. As
all who know me know, I am no fan of either Clinton, but Bill is the most
capable politician with a national audience, and perhaps only he has the
requisite oratorical skills and the standing to do what is necessary. I
hope he sets practical political calculation and triangulation aside, takes the
necessary risks, and rises to the occasion as Churchill once did when no one
else would, and that he condemns this charlatan and his odious ideas loudly,
persistently, and once and for all. If not him, then someone else must. I
know some will think I am overreacting or overstating the case. That is exactly
what many said, no, what most thought after the failed and
somewhat comical Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch of 1923, and for
several years thereafter. Not so much by 1934, though, at which time
Hitler declared himself Führer. Let us therefore not take any chances.